Skip to main content

tv   The Daily Show With Jon Stewart  Comedy Central  March 1, 2013 7:25pm-7:55pm PST

7:25 pm
stuff that you could hear almost anyone say. >> stephen: like conjunctions. >> like congress junctions. >> stephen: thank you joining me. farv farv
7:26 pm
7:27 pm
7:28 pm
[cheers and applause] >> stephen: that's it for the report, everybody. good night. [cheers and applause] captioning sponsored by comedy central >> from comedy central's world
7:29 pm
news headquarters in new york, this is "the daily show" with jon stewart. ["daily show" theme song playing] [cheers and applause] >> jon: welcome to "the daily show." my same in jon stewart. does that look like anything in i tried to draw a cartoon. ow indeed. we have a nice one tonight. joining us tonight from the msnbc cable news network we have a basket of graduate degrees. actually it's rachel maddow who has a degree. she has earned them. earned them. not like me with the honorary doctorate although i still operate. [ laughter ] one day i won't kill one. [ laughter ] folks, next month marks the tenth and -- anniversary of the iraqi war.
7:30 pm
what do you get the paper, sphwhood this might be regret. how do you start it by starting another war. >> the obama white house is engaged in a war of words with "washington post" reporter bob woodward over the origin of the spending cuts. >> jon: oh, a war of words as long as one of those words isn't drone, really that's the kind of war you can get into with this administration. why would you word war with a ledge gend dairy word warrior like woodward? [cheers and applause] [laughter] hairball. [ laughter ] woodward, of course is the hand some redford half of woodward and bern styne. it goes back when he said the white house moved the goal post on the current sequester
7:31 pm
proceedings by suggesting tax increases inlew of cuts. the republicans agreed to spending cuts. a fair accounting of overall debt would allow them -- so the notion that obama was moving the goal post was less accurate that -- sorry. wanted to wake you guys back up. [laughter] apologize. [cheers and applause] that's actually as far as we got even writing frankly. it was -- [snoring] [laughter] it was after that article that woodward received a rather curious e-mail. >> and it was said to me in an e-mail by a top -- >> what was it?
7:32 pm
>> it was said very clearly you will regret doing this. >> you won't be threaten bud a senior official. you've gone through worse than this. >> jon: (bleep) got real mother (bleep). [ laughter ] you'll regret this. [laughter] these administration chicago-style thugs storm arming a formerly young reporter like this, if only we had the e-mails. oh, where are you? perhaps if i saw julian assange's name three times they'll appear. assange, assangeassange.
7:33 pm
>> we have the copy of e-mail. >> jon: it turns out it was sent to him by noted gangster senior economic adviser gene sperling or mean gene as no one has ever called him. [laughter] we're going to read the e-mails. if there are children in the room, i would ask you to have them leave. my guess is they'll think it's pretty lame sperling writes, apologize for raising my voice in our conversation today. >> jon: interesting tactic. begin your threat with an apology. >> i do truly believe you should rethink your comments about saying the potus is moving the goal posts, i know you don't believe me but as a friend i think you'll regret making that claim. >> jon: that's la cosa
7:34 pm
nothing. woodward if you see i again, i'll wave to you because we're good friends. >> jon: that doesn't sound like a threat to me and i'm a coward. i'm sure in his return e-mail he discuss disappointment with this bullying tactic. >> gene, do you not ever have to apologize to me. >> jon: because access means never having to say you're sorry. great another ginned up distraction pulling focus from the sequester budget cuts. why is there no bill? mr. tangerine man, write a bill for me. >> we have moved a bill in the house twice. we should not have to move a third bill before the senate gets off their ass and begins to do something. >> jon: yes, mr. house of representatives you've had an up-or-down vote. why hasn't the senate done the same?
7:35 pm
is it because the are not party, the republicans, won't allow it. >> i want to ask but something else that happened today john boehner using colorful language. >> use of the word ass, that word ass. >> get off his ass. >> use of the word like that inappropriate or fine? >> coming out of the ass. >> of the ass. [laughter] >> jon: he said ass. (bleep). [cheers and applause] i'm sorry but when did the tough edged corporate media become such delicate flowers. oh, you said the word regret and i'm afraid for my life and now that dreadful orange man is speaking in vulgarities. send me the smelling salts so i can shove them up my ass. for godsakes this is elderly
7:36 pm
mormon harry reid's reaction. >> i was raised in a little town that had 13 brothels in it so i'm used to some pretty salty language. >> jon: admit it, when he started with raised in, you were thinking district mormon household or an era that was more civil. but he was when i was a kid it was all whorehouses. it was just ass, assass, you feel me, right? maybe my favorite treatment is how our friend as the a certain morning show dealt wit. >> we should not have to move a third bill when the senate gets off their (bleep) and does something. >> jon: when you bleep it it sounds ten times worse. it sounds like he could have said (bleep). if the home audience wants to
7:37 pm
know what word i said send a self addressed envelope to brian williams at rock[cheers and app]
7:38 pm
7:39 pm
7:40 pm
>> jon: welcome back. the drug war -- tough segue. the drug war has cost countless litchs and endless dollars. now there's a terrifying front from an unexpected source. jason has more. >> everyone knows about the drug violence perpetrated by the ruthless mexican cartels but we haven't heard much about the violent ones up north in quebec. i sat down with a local reporter who agreed to speak with us on the condition we hid his
7:41 pm
identity. this say big deal in canada. the cartel accounts for three quarters of production. >> what are we talking about here? coke, heroin, marijuana. >> maple syrup. >> come again. >> maple syrup. >> sounds like you are saying maple syrup. >> yes, the condiment. >> put the lights on. what? >> a barrel of maple syrup the market value is 20 times that of a barrel of crude oil. >> holy (bleep), turn the lights out. this lucrative business is controlled by the cartel known as the confederation of maple syrup producers. i arranged the meeting with the bossman himself the pablo escobar of maple syrup. >> when it -- hi, welcome to canada. >> not the greeting he was expecting.
7:42 pm
>> some people said we're kind of opec of maple syrup. we have 42 million pounds in the reserve in the warehouses. >> did you just say you have a strategic maple syrup reserve? >> yes. >> do you feel the word would collapse if the syrup stopped flowing? >> yes, because you know maple syrup is a comfort food basically. >> where the syrup flows, crime follows. >> 18 million dollars worth of maple syrup was stolen from a storage warehouse. >> police recovered vehicles, electronic lifts and scales and they seized a warehouse. >> yes, syrup related crime is exploded against canada with criminals becoming more brazen every day. >> it was apparently siphoned from the original containers and distributed through underground channels and ultimately across the border. that's a lot of maple syrup to
7:43 pm
shove up your ass. >> you wouldn't do it. would you drive it. >> of course, that makes sense. he wasn't going to get it go unpunnished. >> i thought this say joke. it's impossible. >> do you think sending a message by stringing a thief up by a maple tree? >> no. clearly i would get nowhere with this master of lies. if i was going to find the missing sticky i had to step out of my comfort zone to underground syrup houses. >> do you have idea of war going on to put this (bleep) in front of your face. >> it's waffles. >> this was the biggest syrup heist in canadian history but all the sap suckers cared about was getting the next fix. >> it's really good on ice cream. it gets kind of thick and more syrupy like toffee. >> i'm looking at what you are eating and thinking you are barely human anymore. >> excuse me?
7:44 pm
>> when investigating the underworld of syrup trade a reporter has to be careful not to get too close. >> have you tried? >> i don't need to. >> tom: yes, you should try. >> i don't need to, okay? >> but saying clean in canada isn't easy with pushers everywhere. >> did you even try it? >> i don't need to try it. >> you should try it. you will try it because it's for you to be able to talk on tv about maple syrup, you have to taste it. >> fine. sure, it was good, even great but this was a serious story that someone needed to get to the bottom of and i was not about to lose control. [ laughter ] happen to know anything about these stolen canadian stickies? >> no. >> do you have samples? >> want to taste it. >> look at that. just a little. i'll take three jugs. >> three jugs, all right.
7:45 pm
>> do you have anything bigger than these? >> i was getting answers but i needed more answers, a lot more answers. ♪ it's just a shout away ♪ >> put the syrup in the bag. put the syrup in the bag ♪ ♪ >> in quebec police say they've arrested 18 people in connection with the theft of millions of dollars worth of maple syrup. >> mother (bleep) they solved this thing? >> why i had let myself become addicted to maple syrup. this thing was over or was it? >> we're working on developing new markets talking about japan and europe. there's a lot of consumers
7:46 pm
there. >> how do you sleep at night? >> you put maple syrup in your tea or coffee. you are going to be sleep like a baby. [laughter] >> jon: jason jones. 'll we'll r r[cheers and appla]
7:47 pm
7:48 pm
>> jon: welcome back my guest tonight she's the host of msnbc's the rachel maddow show. her book "drift" is coming out
7:49 pm
next week in paperback. you should get it. please welcome back to the program rachel maddow. [cheers and applause] >> the rachel mado song. >> jon: it's the rachel maddow song. ♪ rachel maddow is here. ♪ >> excellent. >> jon: we'll get to the sequester. >> can't wait. >> jon: you were at the supreme court. >> yes. >> jon: yesterday? >> yesterday. >> jon: the voting rights act. you got in. details. >> so we don't -- i don't -- i feel like i don't have a number line that is long enough that goes high enough to understand how on the same day we're unveiling the statue of rosa parks at the u.s. capitol and one block away we're considering getting rid of the pillar of american civil rights law and that happens at the same time at
7:50 pm
the same place and nobody's head explodes. i think the voting rights acted is really, really important. it's not so old that it seems like it doesn't aply. when i wanted to talk to somebody about it i talked to john lewis who was nearly killed on a bridge in selma less than a week before president johnson formed a session of congress to talk about what they did to the man in selma. john lewis is still in congress. there's no camera. we never get footage of what happens in there. it's weird to see antonin scalia in person. weird. >> jon: does he. i only read some of the transcripts of what he was saying. he was saying we've got to get rid of this because it's one of last invest yijs of racial
7:51 pm
preference. >> he said when congress reupped they looked into whether or not it was still necessary. ten months of debate, 21 hearings, 15,000 pages of evidence and in the senate they voted 98-0, yeah we still need but he said, yeah what does that vote mean. >> jon: didn't he say we told them to fix this in 2006 but clearly they can't or won't so we have to do it for them. >> voting is a racial entitlement now. something you are entitled to on the basis of your race. wait a second. do you know how it sounds. i think he does know. that's the neat thing about being there in person you can see oh, actually he's a troll. essaying this for effect -- he e is saying this for effect. he knows he's going to get a gasp. he loves it. he's like the guy in the blog comments using the n word. ahh! did that make you mad.
7:52 pm
how about if i say this? >> jon: was he like by the way i have something for you ba-bam! that's guy? >> he's that kind of guy. what we're shocked that he said something so blatantly racially offensive he's thinking oh, yeah, i did. >> jon: ba-boom. >> that's neat to seesm it's also neat to see sonia sotomayor leaning around the bench and give him what for. all the questions are technically to the lawyers and she's talking to antonin scalia and it's like a brawl between them. >> jon: are the people that have been there a long time, do they know him and say -- but the new kid is shaken or angered by that. ready for it and has a rejoinedder that make him feel embarrassed if he wasn't a troll that loves to make people mad. >> jon: what is surprising is
7:53 pm
the idea that we have to revisit this sort of thing. we were just talking about there are still laws in virginia that said things like if you are not married you cannot cohabitat, things that don't have sunset clauses but you have this violence against women act we should look at that every 18 months. we should look at that because after a while they'll get over it, snriet. [laughter] i don't understand the idea of the cyclical nature of some of these foundations of civil rights. is there a rationale behind that? >> the civil rights act it's not a new problem in the world when it was brought up it was something we needed to do something about it. people that had never done it they were like why are you bringing this up before? we'll deal with it and it will go away. as democracy expands and more people who didn't get to speak in the democratic context get their point across, we can
7:54 pm
address new problems we didn't used to address. that doesn't mean they are new, it just means that we're finally addressing them. that is what happened in 1965 with voting rights and in the 1990's with the violence against women act. as new people make the democratic process work for them their problems get addressed too. >> jon: what essaying is this worked. let's get rid of it now. it worked so well, the problem is gone. right, but what solved it? bizarre. we're going -- we ran out. with you stick around and talk sequester. we'll throw it up on the web. >> exclamation point. >> jon: rachel maddow's show


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on